On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Would making i_readcount atomic be enough in ima_rdwr_violation_check(),
> or would it still need to take the spin_lock? IMA needs guarantees
> that the i_readcount/i_writecount won't be updated in between.
If i_writecount is always updated under the i_lock, then the fix is
probably to make that one non-atomic instead. There's no point in
having an atomic that is always updated under a spinlock, that just
makes everything slower.
Regardless, I don't think i_readcount should be different from i_writecount.
Al? Comments?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
